I was inches from winning this game during the Essen live show.. got two Zee minis instead.. yay! :) Bought it the day after just by the looks + the modular board alone, and have played one 2-player game since. With the overhanging risk of being to quick to judge, I felt 1) getting the resources you wanted was challenging in a mostly unfun way, and I wouldn't say you can do "a whole bunch of stuff" with 5 resources when building airstrips (the tokens are hangars though?) is pretty expensive on average. It was mostly: build somewhere -> put 4-5 workers -> build somewhere -> put 4-5 workers, and so on. 2) Planning ahead was tough with the random refilling of resources. 3) All the (arguably a few too many) point categories made it hard to visualize and differentiate a good move from a bad one. 4) No scoring pad? But apart from that... :)
What does Zee think of this one? He likes puzzling solutions together in games. And since this is mid-weight, I figured it wouldn't be too long for him.
Mostly agree though I'm harsher on the graphic design I think the choices with the dots, the tiny cost requirements and the color choices are beyond stupid. That should have been easy to notice. As for scaling that I don't agree on. Only the worker board scales fine. The map however is always 25 tiles. So in 4P you can fly almost anywhere for free by the half way point. In 2P you almost never pay an opponent resources and even in 4P that happens rarely. 3 is a sweet spot. I would also always use the Exploration variant. It means less noise for players to look at when the game begins.
Great to hear the sounds of the component drop, and the still photo :)
Oh no, the component drop camera broke!
I was inches from winning this game during the Essen live show.. got two Zee minis instead.. yay! :)
Bought it the day after just by the looks + the modular board alone, and have played one 2-player game since. With the overhanging risk of being to quick to judge, I felt 1) getting the resources you wanted was challenging in a mostly unfun way, and I wouldn't say you can do "a whole bunch of stuff" with 5 resources when building airstrips (the tokens are hangars though?) is pretty expensive on average. It was mostly: build somewhere -> put 4-5 workers -> build somewhere -> put 4-5 workers, and so on. 2) Planning ahead was tough with the random refilling of resources. 3) All the (arguably a few too many) point categories made it hard to visualize and differentiate a good move from a bad one. 4) No scoring pad? But apart from that... :)
What does Zee think of this one? He likes puzzling solutions together in games. And since this is mid-weight, I figured it wouldn't be too long for him.
I very much agree with the final thoughts. Definitely worth checking out.
Ha love Century Eastern Spices
Kate Bosworth I also love a 5x5 grid equaling. 24.
@@drxsmetalhippie I can answer for this one. The piece in the center is always the same. So he is right about 24 unique tiles used per game :)
@@PandasaurusGames ah missed that part. thanks
Mostly agree though I'm harsher on the graphic design I think the choices with the dots, the tiny cost requirements and the color choices are beyond stupid. That should have been easy to notice.
As for scaling that I don't agree on. Only the worker board scales fine. The map however is always 25 tiles. So in 4P you can fly almost anywhere for free by the half way point. In 2P you almost never pay an opponent resources and even in 4P that happens rarely. 3 is a sweet spot.
I would also always use the Exploration variant. It means less noise for players to look at when the game begins.
At anything less that 4 players, the upkeep of that board is very cumbersome. This would make a great app.
Looks great
Love this game!
Is Tom Vasel really as smart as he looks ?